Members of the John Birch Society developed an interest in a school of Austrian economists who promoted free-market ideals. Charles and David Koch were particularly influenced by the work of Friedrich von Hayek, the author of “The Road to Serfdom” (1944), which argued that centralized government planning led, inexorably, to totalitarianism. Hayek’s belief in unfettered capitalism has proved inspirational to many conservatives, and to anti-Soviet dissidents; lately, Tea Party supporters have championed his work. In June, the talk-radio host Glenn Beck, who has supported the Tea Party rebellion, promoted “The Road to Serfdom” on his show; the paperback soon became a No. 1 best-seller on Amazon. (Beck appears to be a fan of the Kochs; in the midst of a recent on-air parody of Al Gore, Beck said, without explanation, “I want to thank Charles Koch for this information.” Beck declined to elaborate on the relationship.)

As their fortunes grew, Charles and David Koch became the primary underwriters of hard-line libertarian politics in America. Charles’s goal, as Doherty described it, was to tear the government “out at the root.” The brothers’ first major public step came in 1979, when Charles persuaded David, then thirty-nine, to run for public office. They had become supporters of the Libertarian Party, and were backing its Presidential candidate, Ed Clark, who was running against Ronald Reagan from the right. Frustrated by the legal limits on campaign donations, they contrived to place David on the ticket, in the Vice-Presidential slot; upon becoming a candidate, he could lavish as much of his personal fortune as he wished on the campaign. The ticket’s slogan was “The Libertarian Party has only one source of funds: You.” In fact, its primary source of funds was David Koch, who spent more than two million dollars on the effort.

Many of the ideas propounded in the 1980 campaign presaged the Tea Party movement. Ed Clark told The Nation that libertarians were getting ready to stage “a very big tea party,” because people were “sick to death” of taxes. The Libertarian Party platform called for the abolition of the F.B.I. and the C.I.A., as well as of federal regulatory agencies, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Department of Energy. The Party wanted to end Social Security, minimum-wage laws, gun control, and all personal and corporate income taxes; it proposed the legalization of prostitution, recreational drugs, and suicide. Government should be reduced to only one function: the protection of individual rights. William F. Buckley, Jr., a more traditional conservative, called the movement “Anarcho-Totalitarianism.”

Re: Do you want to get it? You have been Koched. David Koch RAN for VP of the libertatian party. Founded the polices Paul promotes

Now the Paul connection... he just continues it.. and it is the rich man's dream:

Libertarians envision a country with every citizen fending for themselves with no federally enforced equal rights protections or programs to maintain and build roads, schools, hospitals, or regulations to protect consumers. In fact, Ron Paul said that as president, he would immediately eliminate five federal departments of Energy, Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, and Education. He would end war spending and recall all U.S. forces from overseas, end foreign aid, and abolish the IRS and Federal Reserve. Paul’s vision for America is 50 states that make up their own laws irrespective of constitutional rights, and leave Americans at the mercy of the wealthy elite. If one talks to a Ron Paul supporter, they support the philosophy of anything goes and everyone is on their own, but upon further review and reflection, few Americans really advocate for being left on their own.

Libertarianism is a wealthy person’s dream with no regulations or taxes and no concern for anyone but themselves. The wealthy have financial security to pay for private schools, private security, private fire departments, private roads, and private airports and for them, go it on your own works well; especially when their corporations avoid regulations, consumer protection laws, and taxes. However, for everyone else, Libertarianism means a return to frontier America where each family provides all the services the government provides today. There are few Americans who can afford to individually pay for services their tax dollars provide as part of being an American citizen, and yet it is astonishing the number of supporters Ron Paul has amassed over the years.

Re: Do you want to get it? You have been Koched. David Koch RAN for VP of the libertatian party. Founded the polices Paul promotes

I'm not sure decentralizing govt. is a rich man's dream. It's much easier to control things when you only have to buy off a few people. And Ron Paul getting rid of federal departments doesn't mean those functions can't be handled on the state level, and he in fact has said that he would phase things out so as not to pull the rug out from those currently dependent on social programs. Plus, removing some of the bureaucracy will actually leave more money for those in need, so there's been this false connection made that any shrinkage of govt. implies less money for those in need and I think that's false.

Big govt. and big biz work together way too much as it is. Good ideas exist regardless of whether they come from small or big govt. or small or big biz. I believe in problem solving and iconoclasm. If a big biz tanks... the ideas continue and the creative team moves on and it's no big deal. The particular business is just the vessel for the ideas and is almost irrelevant. As more people seek to control the path of their ideas and reap more rewards from their creativity, you'll probably see a more libertarian society unfold naturally, esp. since working for big businesses means being bothered by loads of bureaucrats within the company that small businesses wouldn't have the money to hire even if they wanted to.

The wealth that is generated by a very large business goes disproportionately to the executives who many times have no clue how the products are made or even conceived. So, having loads of small businesses is actually better for liberals too, cause it's really hard in the current system to let so many people get so rich in these giant businesses and then try to re-distribute the wealth after the fact. A better idea is to have the wealth distribute itself more equitably from the start and that happens when you've got a bunch of small businesses.

Another reason for having govt. enabled big businesses has been the desire to project influence around the world, and it's easier to do that with larger businesses that have more leverage. As people around the world engage and decide not to be mortal enemies, the need to project national power around the world diminishes and so the need for governments to sponsor certain industries does as well. But, if there was a reason to help certain businesses via bailouts or whatever, national power projection might be the only good reason. I have wondered if perhaps the big banks were give a bailout guarantee because they were operating on behalf of the US dollar with some of their bets and so maybe in exchange for that they were given govt. backing. Or maybe it was just greed and corruption. I always want to assume there's some "good" reason, but sometimes maybe it's just sold that way. Don't know.

So, anyway, I don't doubt that there may be rich people supporting libertarian ideas and that there may be elites trying to hijack the movement (that's what they always do). But, I think Ron Paul supporters are pretty thoughtful and don't tend to be the "sway w/ the breeze" follower types, so it's going to be tough to pull off in practice. In fact, you see them outsmarting the RNC, and getting all these delegates on the state level. They've infiltrated the GOP more so than the other way around. Hopefully that continues.

Re: Do you want to get it? You have been Koched. David Koch RAN for VP of the libertatian party. Founded the polices Paul promotes

And one of the reasons I think you've seen and will continue to see more small enterprises is just cause the barrier to doing so is way lower now. The possibility for gatekeeping has been diminished. Young people can learn about everything via the internet from and early age and be ready to go when they get older. Crowd sourcing is something new. Distribution and networking are easier. 3D printing may one day allow people to manufacture easily from their bedrooms, or they can just mail their schematics to a local site for production. It's going to all be about the most creative people in the near future (It kind of already is.... I don't mean to be cynical). The gatekeepers won't be able to control it all and that's a good thing, and Ron Paul's world view is more consistent with the new reality and encouraging that than the other candidates who are still stuck with the old status quo full of big interests dragging their feet and propagandizing everyone to keep their profits and influence up.

We need good ideas. It doesn't matter if they come about from one giant biz or 50 small ones. And in fact, if they come about via 50 small ones, that means more jobs (there is redundancy amongst small businesses), more equitable wealth creation, and less risk of huge money leverage used to lobby and corrupt our politics. In fact, on an objective level, almost everything about smaller businesses is beneficial. Even giant projects can be accomplished by various small businesses former partnerships (happens all the time). But, those small businesses don't have big lobbyists, so it's going to take a change in politics to change things, and Ron Paul represents that more than the other candidates.

Re: Do you want to get it? You have been Koched. David Koch RAN for VP of the libertatian party. Founded the polices Paul promotes

One thing you're saying is that an absence of regulation means that the rich would run roughshod over everyone. I think that's not so much true as the ruthless and unethical would run over us. Although I suppose at some point they'd probably get rich doing so... but in the internet age, I'm pretty certain there is a limit as to what they could get away with, much more so that in the olden days. Someone can be rich and have morals. But, still having legal teeth to doing the right thing is not a bad idea, but it has limits before being counterproductive.

So, I'll certainly admit that regulations are needed. But I'd also say that those regulations can often be enforced via private agencies and so if one agency falls out of favor, we can vote with our wallets to buy other products until a company chooses to have their products certified by another agency that has a better reputation. This is probably a better option than for example finding out that the USDA has allowed a tainted product to market.... and then I guess hoping they change their ways, but really having no other agency to turn to in the mean time.

Also, at some point with regulations you get to a point where the barrier of entry is so high that no one but the rich can compete. What's better than being rich and competing in a fair playing field? Rigging the field so you never lose.... and you do that via so much regulation that no one else can exist, and by buying off the government to either pass favorable legislation, give you exemptions to legislation, or looking the other way when you violate the legislation. So, if you're going to get govt. involved, you have to be sure it's not actually being counterproductive by prohibiting competition via high barrier of entry, and you have to be willing to stop govt. corruption so the govt. acts as an aid to the citizens and not as a point of leverage for businesses to rig the playing field in their favor.